In an e-mail statement, editor Matthew Cardinale says Springston was asked to leave APN last week “because he held on to the notion that there was an objective reality that could be reported objectively, despite the fact that that was not our editorial policy at Atlanta Progressive News.”

This is from APN’s Frequently Asked Questions:

“Progressive news is news that brings us closer to universal health care, living wages, affordable housing, peace, a healthy environment, and voting systems we can trust.

We provide news of concern to working families, and therefore, our writing is geared toward a specific audience. Fortunately, our audience–working families–comprises a majority of people in the United States who are largely ignored by corporate media sources.

We believe there is no such thing as objective news. Typically, mainstream media presents itself as objective but is actually skewed towards promoting the corporate agenda of the ultra-wealthy.

APN, on the other hand, does not pretend to be objective. We believe that our news coverage is fair and that our progressive principles are fair. We aim when possible to give voice to all sides, but aim to provide something different than what is already provided by corporate sources.”

APN’s policy explains the predominant trend in journalism today, but they are more up front about it. This is the reason the mainstream media has such a liberal bias (although APN believes they are “corporate media” that think they’re objective). This is why the MSM ignored questions about Obama’s past. It’s an excellent example of how modern philosophy is spreading through our culture, working its way from universities to newspapers.

How long can a culture that no longer has confidence in objective reality remain free? I would imagine the answer is “Not long.”

Journalism as a profession is being destroyed by its conception of objectivity as being essentially a view without viewpoint, i.e. “sees all sides” — a God’s eye view that considers omniscience as a valid standard.

Since that’s impossible for any fallible human being, the logic goes, than objectivity is impossible — i.e. any reportage *must* be colored by the reporter’s subjective viewpoint. And that, in a nutshell, is journalism school.

If you dig around, you’ll likely find countless college terms papers where someone comes to that conclusion, thinking they’ve discovered something new. I knew someone back in Canada who did that.

In any case, this is one situation where Ayn Rand’s admonishment to “don’t bother examining a folly; instead examine what it accomplishes” applies: what is being accomplished here, is the blinding of society by destroying the credibility of communication.

National Security Workforce to Address ‘Intersectionality’: do you ever get the sense that you’re in a waking nightmare? Money quote from the memo: “Our greatest asset in protecting the homeland and advancing our interests abroad is the talent and diversity of our national security workforce.”

Last Week Tonight on Donald Trump: bit long, but great takedown of the Trump mythos. In a more rational political environment, this would have killed his presidential campaign. I’m not sure it’ll make any difference.

A Responsibility I Take Seriously: nominee must be “without any particular ideology or agenda” and have “a keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook.” I sure hope the Republicans can hold the line on his nominations.

Trigger Warnings in Annapolis: I’m not sure why I expected the service academies to be bastions of academic freedom, but I did. It’s much worse than the universities since they’re far more hierarchical.

Announcing the Twitter Trust & Safety Council: this is within their rights, of course. Given the leftist leanings of the company and its assembled Council of Goodspeech, I suspect that some groups will get a pass and some will face suppression. Chilling at any rate.